[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Nov 20 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

Winston you make it seem so easy. If only it was all as obvious to Obama as it is to you, he could have made this decision a whole lot more quickly.

Quote

“It really boils down to one of two decisions, getting out or getting in.”

--President Lyndon Johnson, speaking about Vietnam.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Nov 21 2009, 10:33 AM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 20 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

Winston you make it seem so easy. If only it was all as obvious to Obama as it is to you, he could have made this decision a whole lot more quickly.

Quote

“It really boils down to one of two decisions, getting out or getting in.”

--President Lyndon Johnson, speaking about Vietnam.

Great, please show our president that shortcut you seem to have mastered for choosing between those two decisions.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Nov 21 2009, 12:34 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 21 2009, 10:33 AM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 20 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

Winston you make it seem so easy. If only it was all as obvious to Obama as it is to you, he could have made this decision a whole lot more quickly.

Quote

“It really boils down to one of two decisions, getting out or getting in.”

--President Lyndon Johnson, speaking about Vietnam.

Great, please show our president that shortcut you seem to have mastered for choosing between those two decisions.

Josh, you're being very lazy. Various easily accessible blogs explain the whole thing.

There are also blogs on the other side of the issue, but they're ignorant or biased.

[Winstonm]

Quote

“It really boils down to one of two decisions, getting out or getting in.”

Quote

There are also blogs on the other side of the issue, but they're ignorant or biased.

What exactly IS the other side of in or out?

(You are correct, though, that proven failures at military strategy like Douglas Feith, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Bill Kristol are ignored.)

[kenberg]

Just to clarify: Winston, you advocate shutting down our military operation in Afghanistan completely, is that right? You have been very clear in your opposition to further commitment, but I am not certain whether you advocate complete withdrawal of all of our troops from Afghanistan. If you do advocate this withdrawal, what do you see as our future military role, if any, in the region? You basically see us as withdrawing as a military force in the region?

To my mind, full commitment to Afghanistan is a very big deal. I wish it had been thought through much more deeply before now. It's a mess, no doubt about it. I also think full withdrawal from the region will be a very big deal, and probably not completely good. Maybe on balance it will be best, that is not clear to me. It's very difficult for me to imagine a middle course. I really don't know what it would be.

So in or out probably really is what it comes to. And you are for out, totally out, is that right?

[blackshoe]

People are no more "failures of military strategy" than they are "successes of military strategy". Now, if you changed "of" to "at" you might have something.

As for those particular individuals being failures at military strategy, that wouldn't surprise me. OTOH, the claim that any of them had anything to do with military strategy seems a bit over the top, to say the least. Political strategy, maybe, but that's (to me anyway) a different animal.

[Winstonm]

We have wasted enough of our national wealth and blood of our youth chasing pipe dreams - it is time to try another strategy: non-intervention.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Nov 21 2009, 06:02 PM, said:

People are no more "failures of military strategy" than they are "successes of military strategy". Now, if you changed "of" to "at" you might have something.

As for those particular individuals being failures at military strategy, that wouldn't surprise me. OTOH, the claim that any of them had anything to do with military strategy seems a bit over the top, to say the least. Political strategy, maybe, but that's (to me anyway) a different animal.

Good point about of and at - and changed.

As for military versus political - how can they be truly separated when it comes to strategy.

[blackshoe]

Political strategy: we need to get Saddam out of power in Iraq.
Military strategy: so we'll go in with overwhelming force, destroy the Iraqi Army, drive to Bagdad, and capture or kill Saddam.

It's true that the former drives the latter, but they are not the same thing.

[blackshoe]

That we should not involve ourselves in wars all over the planet unless it's absolutely necessary is probably one of the few things on which you and I can agree, Winston. Still, I do wonder if it'll work. There is still "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on Nov 21 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

That we should not involve ourselves in wars all over the planet unless it's absolutely necessary is probably one of the few things on which you and I can agree, Winston. Still, I do wonder if it'll work. There is still "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

I agree with you both too.

As it happens, though, the US has already intervened militarily in both Iraq and Afghanistan, so non-intervention is no longer an option. Pulling out now is not the same thing at all. Perhaps US politicians will finally learn a lesson out of this, but then I thought they would have learned from Vietnam.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Nov 21 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

That we should not involve ourselves in wars all over the planet unless it's absolutely necessary is probably one of the few things on which you and I can agree, Winston. Still, I do wonder if it'll work. There is still "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

I never advocated "doing nothing" - just to be clear. I only advocate a policy of non-intervention.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Political strategy: we need to get Saddam out of power in Iraq.
Military strategy: so we'll go in with overwhelming force, destroy the Iraqi Army, drive to Bagdad, and capture or kill Saddam.

I don't mean to argue the case with you as you have the stronger background. My understanding of the terms comes from Andrew Bacevich.

But I understood that: "we need to have a regime change in Iraq" would be considered a part of the strategy, whereas "going in with overwhelming force, destroying the Iraq Army, driving to Bagdad, and capturing or killing Saddam" would be considered the tactical plan to implement the strategy.

This was actually the argument that Bacevich made in his book, The Limits of Power, that the Pentagon has erred by confusing tactical achievements with strategic goals.

Also, what to do after the win (occupation, nation building) has to be part of the strategy does it not. as well as the political considerations involving the surrounding countries afterwards?

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on Nov 21 2009, 06:49 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Nov 21 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

That we should not involve ourselves in wars all over the planet unless it's absolutely necessary is probably one of the few things on which you and I can agree, Winston. Still, I do wonder if it'll work. There is still "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

I never advocated "doing nothing" - just to be clear. I only advocate a policy of non-intervention.

But do you advocate withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan?

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on Nov 21 2009, 08:55 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 21 2009, 06:49 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Nov 21 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

That we should not involve ourselves in wars all over the planet unless it's absolutely necessary is probably one of the few things on which you and I can agree, Winston. Still, I do wonder if it'll work. There is still "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

I never advocated "doing nothing" - just to be clear. I only advocate a policy of non-intervention.

But do you advocate withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan?

yes.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on Nov 21 2009, 08:56 PM, said:

kenberg, on Nov 21 2009, 08:55 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 21 2009, 06:49 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Nov 21 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

That we should not involve ourselves in wars all over the planet unless it's absolutely necessary is probably one of the few things on which you and I can agree, Winston. Still, I do wonder if it'll work. There is still "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

I never advocated "doing nothing" - just to be clear. I only advocate a policy of non-intervention.

But do you advocate withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan?

yes.

I don't see how that can be so easily done, Winston.

For one thing, lots of folks living there have assisted the US, counting on assurances they've received. They will not all be allowed to emigrate to the US, so withdrawing will put those people at risk (to say the least). This is always a heart-rending story, and all too familiar.

That's one reason (of many) for our leaders to think long and hard before setting out to occupy a country (and ultimately rejecting the idea). I strongly believe that the US should have finished the job quickly in Afghanstan and brought the troops home without ever getting sidetracked into Iraq.

But that's all water under the dam now. I just don't see how we can go into a country, wreak a good deal of havoc for years and years, convince folks to help us, and then leave them holding the bag. We've got to do better than that.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on Nov 21 2009, 11:26 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 21 2009, 08:56 PM, said:

kenberg, on Nov 21 2009, 08:55 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 21 2009, 06:49 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Nov 21 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

That we should not involve ourselves in wars all over the planet unless it's absolutely necessary is probably one of the few things on which you and I can agree, Winston. Still, I do wonder if it'll work. There is still "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

I never advocated "doing nothing" - just to be clear. I only advocate a policy of non-intervention.

But do you advocate withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan?

yes.

I don't see how that can be so easily done, Winston.

For one thing, lots of folks living there have assisted the US, counting on assurances they've received. They will not all be allowed to emigrate to the US, so withdrawing will put those people at risk (to say the least). This is always a heart-rending story, and all too familiar.

That's one reason (of many) for our leaders to think long and hard before setting out to occupy a country (and ultimately rejecting the idea). I strongly believe that the US should have finished the job quickly in Afghanstan and brought the troops home without ever getting sidetracked into Iraq.

But that's all water under the dam now. I just don't see how we can go into a country, wreak a good deal of havoc for years and years, convince folks to help us, and then leave them holding the bag. We've got to do better than that.

No one ever said it would be easy, clean or neat. Consider that the alternative to withdrawing is perpetual low-level warfare that drains the national treasure and provides security for no one.

From The Nation: http://www.thenation...20091102/hayden

Quote

Military intellectuals envision a prolonged cold war against Al Qaeda, with hot wars along the way. It happens that the Long War is over Muslim lands rich with oil, natural gas and planned pipelines. The Pentagon identifies them as hostile terrain where Al Qaeda and its affiliates are hidden.

Among the top experts responsible for this fifty-year war plan, concocted in 2005 in windowless offices in the Pentagon, is Dr. David Kilcullen, a former Australian soldier, an anthropologist, former top adviser to Gen. David Petraeus and current aide to Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

If we do not withdraw, we are supporting the Long War whether we agree with it or not.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on Nov 22 2009, 09:11 AM, said:

No one ever said it would be easy, clean or neat. Consider that the alternative to withdrawing is perpetual low-level warfare that drains the national treasure and provides security for no one.

From The Nation: http://www.thenation...20091102/hayden

Quote

Military intellectuals envision a prolonged cold war against Al Qaeda, with hot wars along the way. It happens that the Long War is over Muslim lands rich with oil, natural gas and planned pipelines. The Pentagon identifies them as hostile terrain where Al Qaeda and its affiliates are hidden.

Among the top experts responsible for this fifty-year war plan, concocted in 2005 in windowless offices in the Pentagon, is Dr. David Kilcullen, a former Australian soldier, an anthropologist, former top adviser to Gen. David Petraeus and current aide to Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

If we do not withdraw, we are supporting the Long War whether we agree with it or not.

I understand what you are saying, Winston, but it's far from obvious to me that those are the only two alternatives.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The world counterterrorism community that is planning the Long War, Kilcullen has said, is "small and tightly knit." This is precisely Bacevich's complaint. In the preface to his book he writes, "National security policy has long been the province of a small, self-perpetuating, self-anointed group of specialists...

The question in my mind is: who really is in charge of policy decisions?

Quote

I understand what you are saying, Winston, but it's far from obvious to me that those are the only two alternatives.

Again...this really depends on who advises the President. If he listens to the small cadre of self-appointed "experts" his choices will be described as either committing to the Long War or suffering a calamitous failure.

The only bright spot is that this President seems to be aware of this conundrum and is asking for more options.

[kenberg]

E. J. Dionne has a column in the Post today that reflects a lot of the views expressed here, including quoting from Andrew Bacevich. He puts the Obama thinking in, I think, as good a light as is possible and I want to comment a bit on what he says.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9112201238.html

"No one would choose to start from where we are now in Afghanistan. We shouldn't have put this war on the back burner for so long, and we should have dealt much earlier with the debilitating deficiencies of President Hamid Karzai's government. But Obama can change none of this. And unlike enthusiasts for an all-out counterinsurgency strategy, Obama knows he has to make a decision that's sustainable over the long run, which means taking into account domestic economic and political realities."

I entirely agree. I would say, and have said, more. During the election campaign I thought that Obama overstated the need for quickly getting our troops out of Iraq and oversimplified, by a great deal, the situation in Afghanistan. I would have preferred that we make it clear we are winding down our presence in Iraq but without specifying exactly a timetable (I think this is what we actually have come to, contrary to Obama's earlier statements) and that we needed to think through what was possible and what was not in Afghanistan and that this thinking through would begin in great earnest the day after the election.



Another quote:
"A senior administration official, emphasizing that final choices have not been made, described the policy Obama is likely to announce in early December this way: "It will not be open-ended, it will be limited in time, and the focus will be on strategy, not the number of troops." It's likely that the number of troops he'll send will be below the 40,000 proposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal. "

And later:
"Yet in the wake of Sept. 11, he [Obama] sees the United States as having vital interests in Afghanistan that it did not have in Vietnam: the need to defeat terrorists in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to be mindful of the impact of our choices on the future of Pakistan."


I see the reconciliation of these two quotes as the fundamental problem. What does it mean to speak of vital interests that will be met by a limited response? There is an old British comedy, "I'm All Right Jack" that has an MP describing how the government will deal with a labor problem. Roughly it went "You can be sure that we will take prompt and effective action and you may rest assured that we will not interfere".

Dionne calls his column "Plan C for Afghanistan". We can all hope that there is one, and that it will be effective. We cannot let ourselves be dragged into a state of perpetual war. I don't think I know anyone who disagrees with that. How that general agreement gets translated into a plan is not clear to me.